Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Created newer version (2018-06-17-preview) of workbook resource type #2950

Merged
merged 29 commits into from
Jul 2, 2018

Conversation

ericc1103
Copy link
Contributor

@ericc1103 ericc1103 commented Apr 26, 2018

Added sourceId as an optional parameter.

This checklist is used to make sure that common issues in a pull request are addressed. This will expedite the process of getting your pull request merged and avoid extra work on your part to fix issues discovered during the review process.

PR information

  • The title of the PR is clear and informative.
  • There are a small number of commits, each of which have an informative message. This means that previously merged commits do not appear in the history of the PR. For information on cleaning up the commits in your pull request, see this page.
  • Except for special cases involving multiple contributors, the PR is started from a fork of the main repository, not a branch.
  • If applicable, the PR references the bug/issue that it fixes.
  • Swagger files are correctly named (e.g. the api-version in the path should match the api-version in the spec).

Quality of Swagger

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Apr 26, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-python

The initial PR has been merged into your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-python#2022

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Apr 26, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-node

A PR has been created for you based on this PR content.

Once this PR will be merged, content will be added to your service PR:
Azure/azure-sdk-for-node#2691

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Apr 26, 2018

Automation for azure-libraries-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-libraries-for-java

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Apr 26, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-go

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-go

@azuresdkciprbot
Copy link

AutoRest linter results for ARM Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the ARM team's validation tools, reachout to ARM RP API Review directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/applicationinsights/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(0 total)
0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

@azuresdkciprbot
Copy link

AutoRest linter results for SDK Related Validation Errors/Warnings

These errors are reported by the SDK team's validation tools, reachout to ADX Swagger Reviewers directly for any questions or concerns.

File: specification/applicationinsights/resource-manager/readme.md

⚠️0 new Warnings.(6 total)
0 new Errors.(0 total)

AutoRest Linter Guidelines | AutoRest Linter Issues | Send feedback

Thanks for your co-operation.

@jianghaolu
Copy link
Contributor

@ericc1103 Sorry for the delay - do you have plans to add the operation for /providers/microsoft.insights/operations?

@ericc1103
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jianghaolu Could you give me more detail information about /providers/microsoft.insights/operations?

@jianghaolu
Copy link
Contributor

@AutorestCI
Copy link

AutorestCI commented Jun 25, 2018

Automation for azure-sdk-for-java

Nothing to generate for azure-sdk-for-java

@ericc1103
Copy link
Contributor Author

ericc1103 commented Jun 25, 2018

@jianghaolu please review this and let's finalize it. This is also unblock other team since I have other modification to avoid DuplicateModelCollsion error. I fixed this by making a properties field as not required for PATCH operation.

…nition for PATCH operation since location is not required field
@ravbhatnagar
Copy link
Contributor

This was reviewed over skype.

@ravbhatnagar ravbhatnagar added ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review and removed WaitForARMFeedback <valid label in PR review process> add this label when ARM review is required labels Jun 27, 2018
@ericc1103
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks Gaurav. @jianghaolu, let's finalize it.
Thanks,
Eric

@ericc1103
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jianghaolu Ping again...

@anuchandy
Copy link
Member

@ericc1103 can you ensure these fixes #3324 are ported to this new api-version swagger as well?

Also there seems conflict in the readme file.

@ericc1103
Copy link
Contributor Author

@anuchandy Applied these fixes #3324 and resolved the merge conflicts.

"x-ms-mutability": [
"create",
"read"
]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can user change the location of workbook resource? if not please remove this property.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@anuchandy Done!

@anuchandy
Copy link
Member

@ericc1103 thank you, i've a question on location update, please see above comment. Once you address it we are good.

@anuchandy anuchandy self-assigned this Jul 2, 2018
@anuchandy
Copy link
Member

@ericc1103 actually we need to remove the location property from the update model if location cannot be changed.

@anuchandy
Copy link
Member

@ericc1103 looks good. One more question - is this API version deployed to production at least in one region?

@ericc1103
Copy link
Contributor Author

@anuchandy It is deployed to multiple regions as of now.

Thanks!

@anuchandy
Copy link
Member

anuchandy commented Jul 2, 2018

thanks @ericc1103 for confirming.

There is an ARMViolation OperationsAPIImplementation but merging this PR as ARM already approved this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
ARMSignedOff <valid label in PR review process>add this label when ARM approve updates after review
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants